Court of Appeal of Tanzania

This is the highest level in the justice delivery system in Tanzania. The Court of Appeal draws its mandate from Article 117(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. The Court hears appeals on both point of law and facts for cases originating from the High Court of Tanzania and Magistrates with extended jurisdiction in exercise of their original jurisdiction or appellate and revisional jurisdiction over matters originating in the District Land and Housing Tribunals, District Courts and Courts of Resident Magistrate. The Court also hears similar appeals from quasi judicial bodies of status equivalent to that of the High Court. It further hears appeals on point of law against the decision of the High Court in matters originating from Primary Courts. The Court of Appeal also exercises jurisdiction on appeals originating from the High Court of Zanzibar except for constitutional issues arising from the interpretation of the Constitution of Zanzibar and matters arising from the Kadhi Court.

Physical address

26 Kivukoni Road Building P.O. Box 9004, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.

Visit website

https://jmap.judiciary.go.tz/jmap/jmap-coa

8 judgments

Advanced search

Court registries

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

8 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
May 2000
Saumu Jumbe Hatibu vs Abdi Juma Nasibu (Tag Civil Application No. 4 of 1997) [2000] TZCA 47 (25 May 2000) Stay of execution refused after High Court dismissed certificate application, leaving no subsisting basis for appeal. * Civil procedure – Stay of execution – Requirement to demonstrate a subsisting appeal or procedural steps supporting restraint – Dismissal of application for certificate of points of law removes basis for appeal. * Appeals – Certificate of points of law – effect of dismissal on intended appeal. * Administration of estates – execution by appointed administrator not to be restrained absent proper grounds.	25 May 2000
Kirya General Supplies Import and Another vs The Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1998) [2000] TZCA 54 (14 May 2000) Appellant entitled to commercial-rate pre-judgment interest and costs where principal was paid before judgment. Government proceedings – proper respondent is Attorney General; Sale of goods – payment dispute – pre-judgment interest payable at commercial rate where principal paid before judgment; Statutory/judgment interest (7–12%) applies to post-judgment period only; Costs follow event where claimed.	14 May 2000
Mobrama Gold Corporation Limited v Minister for Water, Energy and Minerals and Three Others (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1999) [2000] TZCA 95 (12 May 2000) (From the Decision and Order of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Mapigano, J., dated 19 February 1999, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 42 of 1995) Mining Law - Prerogative orders - Enabling provisions for applications for prerogative orders - Whether the Mining Act 1979 has provisions for applications for prerogative orders.Limitation - Limitation period for applications for prerogative orders	12 May 2000
Mobrama Gold Corporation Limited vs Minister for Water,energy and Minerals and Three Other (Civil Appeal 31 of 1999) [2000] TZCA 8 (12 May 2000) Reported An application for prerogative relief must be instituted within six months of the impugned administrative act; late leave is incompetent. Judicial review – prerogative orders (certiorari, mandamus, prohibition) – limitation: six‑month rule under Law Reform Act s.18(2) – triggering event is the administrative act complained of (original licence grant) – leave must be sought within six months – procedural competence of review applications.	12 May 2000
Mobrama Gold Corporation Ltd vs Minister for Water, Energy and Minerals and Others (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1999) [2000] TZCA 48 (12 May 2000) An application for leave to seek prerogative relief is time‑barred if filed more than six months after the contested public act. Prerogative orders – certiorari/mandamus/prohibition – Law Reform Act (Act No.55/1968) s.18 – six‑month limitation for leave in respect of executive acts or omissions – subsection (3) confined to judicial/quasi‑judicial proceedings – date of act is date of licence instrument – absence of Chief Justice rules does not extend statutory six‑month ceiling.	12 May 2000
Chiku Hussein Lugonzo vs Brunnids S. Paulo (Civil Application 30 of 1999) [2000] TZCA 9 (10 May 2000) Reported Revision is proper where an order rejecting review is not appealable; drawn order need not accompany review memorandum. Civil procedure – Revision jurisdiction where no appeal lies – Order XLII Rule 7(1) prohibits appeal of orders rejecting review; mutatis mutandis in Order XLII Rule 3 applies to form only – No requirement to attach drawn order to memorandum for review where same court/file – Striking out for omission was erroneous.	10 May 2000
Lugonzo v Paulo (Civil Application No. 30 of 1999) [2000] TZCA 96 (10 May 2000) (From the decision ofthe High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Mackanja, J., dated 3 March 1999, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 2 of 1998) Civil Practice and Procedure — Appeal — Appeal from ruling ofthe High Court - Whether a ruling of the High Court rejecting an application for review can be appealed against - Section 5(l)(c ) ofthe Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1979 and Order XLII, rule 7(1) of the Civil Procedure Code 1966. Civil Practice and Procedure - Review -Application for Review not accompanied by a copy ofthe drawn order sought to be reviewed — Whether fatal to the application - Order XL, rule 2, Order XLII, rule, and Order XXXIX, rule 1(1) ofthe Civil Procedure Code 1966.	10 May 2000
Selemani Furahisha vs Huruka Ramadhani (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1998) [2000] TZCA 53 (10 May 2000) Failure to extract the order renders an appeal incompetent and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant withdrawal or extension orders. Civil procedure — failure to extract decree/order — appeal to Court of Appeal incompetent; Jurisdiction — High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant withdrawal/extension where no appeal is properly before it; Appellate revisionary powers — Court of Appeal may set aside High Court orders made without jurisdiction and substitute orders striking out incompetent appeals; Duty of counsel to obtain necessary extracted orders.	10 May 2000